Josh.0

NBA Changes 2015-16 Season

Recommended Posts

Y'know, I actually really like the new font for the Nuggets and find it a great improvement....I just don't think I'll ever like any Nuggets uniform that continues to use that color scheme. I'm sorry, they haven't pulled it off and still can't. It's just not a scheme that works for a miner/prospector themed team. The McDyess years? That scheme nailed it. It was rough, outdoorsy, and kinda folksy. This one's none of those things, it's just too bright and sorta general and has been for years now (and I don't feel the switch of trim from royal to navy blue helped, either).

The McDyess scheme was a bland product of the 90s trend of darkening everything. Dark navy? Dark red? Washed out gold? Nothing stood out, and thus the team had no visual identity. It's the same problem the Canucks' 1997-2007 scheme had. It's just too dark. Nothing really gives it an identity.

The team managed to switch to double blue just before the scheme became overused, beating both the Grizzlies and the Jazz to market. The double blue and gold look also works as a nice update to this older Nuggets look. The team had an identity then. They had an identity with the rainbow look. They have an identity now. They were more or less directionless in the bland look you're describing.

The biggest mark against the McDyess look though? No one cares. The Raptors, Pacers, Hawks, Kings, Heat, and Suns (among a few others) have all thrown back to their 90s looks recently. 90s nostalgia is in today, especially among the crowd too young to actually remember the decade. And with all that the Nuggets aren't selling McDyess-era throwback gear.

I just did a quick check of the team's online store. I could find retro gear for every uniform era of Nuggets basketball save one. The McDyess look. Probably because no one wants it. Those other 90s looks I mentioned? Some were good, some were horrible. All left an impact that made them memorable. The Nuggets' 90s look just didn't. It was bland and lifeless then and it is now.

I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree that the McDyess look was bland and directionless. Even as a kid I could get the colors and the look; the navy/dark red sorta looked like the colors you might see on a plaid flannel shirt a prospector/panner/miner probably wore back in the old days (and even now). The gold of course is self explanatory. Call it a stretch if you'd like, but I saw it very early on and understood it completely. Hardly directionless to me at all. Now the teams that played in them? Yeah...I can give you that! ;)

And whether or not the Nuggets sell the 90's merchandise at all or care for the teams that wore them really doesn't matter to me. My point wasn't necessarily that they should bring it all back; if the Nuggets ever find something - anything - better than the current colors, I'm all for it. Other schemes than the navy/dark red/gold can evoke the nickname just as well, I'm sure. The only point I was trying to make from the get go was that I feel in my personal opinion that the McDyess colors were much, much better suited for the Nuggets than the current colors (which frankly - though I don't like the scheme at all - looks to me like a much better fit for a coastal team than a team based in the Rocky Mountains).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They wore those 90s throwbacks for one game only. I do get it that the rainbows were unique to

Nuggets so they stick to them for marketing reasons. However in terms of pure sport nostalgia (i.e. setting aside uniform design), the most memorable moment of Nuggets in the past 30 years is Mutombo holding the ball after upsetting the Sonics. That's why I would prefer to buy the latter jersey and I didn't like him wearing the rainbow for team Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11811399_10153516891738610_3693911665271

17227_10153516891863610_4685222079494013

This would be perfect if the numeral wasn't navy. Throws it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the typeface changed for all the Nuggets' jerseys, or only the home and road? I haven't seen the alt since they announced the changes.

The alt changed as well. The Nuggets no longer use the Aachen Bold font (which is good...way too college-ish).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'know, I actually really like the new font for the Nuggets and find it a great improvement....I just don't think I'll ever like any Nuggets uniform that continues to use that color scheme. I'm sorry, they haven't pulled it off and still can't. It's just not a scheme that works for a miner/prospector themed team. The McDyess years? That scheme nailed it. It was rough, outdoorsy, and kinda folksy. This one's none of those things, it's just too bright and sorta general and has been for years now (and I don't feel the switch of trim from royal to navy blue helped, either).

The McDyess scheme was a bland product of the 90s trend of darkening everything. Dark navy? Dark red? Washed out gold? Nothing stood out, and thus the team had no visual identity. It's the same problem the Canucks' 1997-2007 scheme had. It's just too dark. Nothing really gives it an identity.

The team managed to switch to double blue just before the scheme became overused, beating both the Grizzlies and the Jazz to market. The double blue and gold look also works as a nice update to this older Nuggets look. The team had an identity then. They had an identity with the rainbow look. They have an identity now. They were more or less directionless in the bland look you're describing.

The biggest mark against the McDyess look though? No one cares. The Raptors, Pacers, Hawks, Kings, Heat, and Suns (among a few others) have all thrown back to their 90s looks recently. 90s nostalgia is in today, especially among the crowd too young to actually remember the decade. And with all that the Nuggets aren't selling McDyess-era throwback gear.

I just did a quick check of the team's online store. I could find retro gear for every uniform era of Nuggets basketball save one. The McDyess look. Probably because no one wants it. Those other 90s looks I mentioned? Some were good, some were horrible. All left an impact that made them memorable. The Nuggets' 90s look just didn't. It was bland and lifeless then and it is now.

I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree that the McDyess look was bland and directionless. Even as a kid I could get the colors and the look; the navy/dark red sorta looked like the colors you might see on a plaid flannel shirt a prospector/panner/miner probably wore back in the old days (and even now). The gold of course is self explanatory. Call it a stretch if you'd like, but I saw it very early on and understood it completely.
It's not a matter of "getting it." It's a matter of looking good. Those Nuggets uniforms didn't, regardless of how literal the scheme is.

I mean you never see midnight green eagles or blood red bulls. Sometimes being too literal just doesn't work, and it didn't work in the Nuggets' case.

And whether or not the Nuggets sell the 90's merchandise at all or care for the teams that wore them really doesn't matter to me.

It's a pretty good metric for determining how well liked a past look is. If people wanted it? The team would sell it. They don't, which is especially damming given how big 90s nostalgia is. The look just doesn't resonate.

My point wasn't necessarily that they should bring it all back; if the Nuggets ever find something - anything - better than the current colors, I'm all for it. Other schemes than the navy/dark red/gold can evoke the nickname just as well, I'm sure. The only point I was trying to make from the get go was that I feel in my personal opinion that the McDyess colors were much, much better suited for the Nuggets than the current colors (which frankly - though I don't like the scheme at all - looks to me like a much better fit for a coastal team than a team based in the Rocky Mountains).

I see double blue, white, and gold and I think snow, the sky, and gold nuggets. Is it a perfect fit? No, but how many red, white, and blue bear cubs are there?

To me a colour scheme needs to reflect team history and look aesthetically pleasing. The current Nuggets look accomplishes both. Literally reflecting the mascot is a nice bonus if it works out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I respect your opinions and understand where you're coming from. I suppose I just see things much differently than you do on the matter, and that's fine. No one's wrong or right here, just different in views.

I think that's the thing with sports branding, because people have different opinions and see things differently, some identities can speak one thing to someone and not the other. You can see how it works with the current colors, I can't. I can see how the 90's colors worked, but you don't. Honestly, I think it provides for good discussion and I learn a lot by engaging in such. So please never take my views as an attack (not saying you have at all), because all I really am trying to get at when I do engage in these kinds of discussions (as I was with this Nuggets conversation) is just the "why" behind what I see in identities/colors/etc, nothing more.

So I guess that was a really long way of saying I still disagree, but understand and respect your stance. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'know, I actually really like the new font for the Nuggets and find it a great improvement....I just don't think I'll ever like any Nuggets uniform that continues to use that color scheme. I'm sorry, they haven't pulled it off and still can't. It's just not a scheme that works for a miner/prospector themed team. The McDyess years? That scheme nailed it. It was rough, outdoorsy, and kinda folksy. This one's none of those things, it's just too bright and sorta general and has been for years now (and I don't feel the switch of trim from royal to navy blue helped, either).

The McDyess scheme was a bland product of the 90s trend of darkening everything. Dark navy? Dark red? Washed out gold? Nothing stood out, and thus the team had no visual identity. It's the same problem the Canucks' 1997-2007 scheme had. It's just too dark. Nothing really gives it an identity.

The team managed to switch to double blue just before the scheme became overused, beating both the Grizzlies and the Jazz to market. The double blue and gold look also works as a nice update to this older Nuggets look. The team had an identity then. They had an identity with the rainbow look. They have an identity now. They were more or less directionless in the bland look you're describing.

The biggest mark against the McDyess look though? No one cares. The Raptors, Pacers, Hawks, Kings, Heat, and Suns (among a few others) have all thrown back to their 90s looks recently. 90s nostalgia is in today, especially among the crowd too young to actually remember the decade. And with all that the Nuggets aren't selling McDyess-era throwback gear.

I just did a quick check of the team's online store. I could find retro gear for every uniform era of Nuggets basketball save one. The McDyess look. Probably because no one wants it. Those other 90s looks I mentioned? Some were good, some were horrible. All left an impact that made them memorable. The Nuggets' 90s look just didn't. It was bland and lifeless then and it is now.

I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree that the McDyess look was bland and directionless. Even as a kid I could get the colors and the look; the navy/dark red sorta looked like the colors you might see on a plaid flannel shirt a prospector/panner/miner probably wore back in the old days (and even now). The gold of course is self explanatory. Call it a stretch if you'd like, but I saw it very early on and understood it completely.
It's not a matter of "getting it." It's a matter of looking good. Those Nuggets uniforms didn't, regardless of how literal the scheme is.

I mean you never see midnight green eagles or blood red bulls. Sometimes being too literal just doesn't work, and it didn't work in the Nuggets' case.

And whether or not the Nuggets sell the 90's merchandise at all or care for the teams that wore them really doesn't matter to me.

It's a pretty good metric for determining how well liked a past look is. If people wanted it? The team would sell it. They don't, which is especially damming given how big 90s nostalgia is. The look just doesn't resonate.

My point wasn't necessarily that they should bring it all back; if the Nuggets ever find something - anything - better than the current colors, I'm all for it. Other schemes than the navy/dark red/gold can evoke the nickname just as well, I'm sure. The only point I was trying to make from the get go was that I feel in my personal opinion that the McDyess colors were much, much better suited for the Nuggets than the current colors (which frankly - though I don't like the scheme at all - looks to me like a much better fit for a coastal team than a team based in the Rocky Mountains).

I see double blue, white, and gold and I think snow, the sky, and gold nuggets. Is it a perfect fit? No, but how many red, white, and blue bear cubs are there?

To me a colour scheme needs to reflect team history and look aesthetically pleasing. The current Nuggets look accomplishes both. Literally reflecting the mascot is a nice bonus if it works out.

I agree with FinsUp here, and here is why.

Bright colors are not necessarily linked to a strong identity, and dark colors are not necessarily linked to a weak identity.

The San Antonio Spurs have a darker color scheme than the navy/gold/red Nuggets did, and no one ever complains about them not having a visual identity.

The Oklahoma City Thunder have bright colors galore, yet their identity (or lack thereof) is constantly trashed by everyone.

Those two examples alone disprove the "bright colors create more of a visual identity than dark colors" theory.

Now, Ice_Cap, you mention that there is not much McDyess era Nuggets gear for sale, but here is the thing: the Nuggets were a terrible team during those years. No Nuggets fans want to remember those years. The very fact that we are referring to these uniforms as "McDyess era" just shows you that they were not often worn by a good team and they did not have many stars that wore the jerseys. Check out the Nuggets season-by-season records. It is almost funny how the seasons when they wore the navy/gold/red jerseys, they did so awful, and for the entire rest of their history, they were pretty consistently at least playoff-bound. In other words, the lack of demand for those jerseys has nothing to do with the jerseys themselves.

All of the other teams you mentioned that embrace their 90s throwbacks had good teams, or at least good players, wear their 90s jerseys (Reggie Miller, Barkley, Dominique Wilkins, Mourning, etc.). Their fans cherish the years those jerseys were worn, or at least players who wore the jersey, hence the nostalgia. For the Raptors, people embrace those jerseys as throwbacks because of their 90s wackiness more than anything; plus, they were the first things the Raptors ever wore, and many fans have been around since the teams inception, and basically "grew up" as the team did. Nostalgia.

I completely understand what FinsUp is saying about Navy and dark red looking much more rough/outdoorsy/folksy (in otherwords perfect for a team called the Denver Nuggets), from a clothing standpoint, than light blue, dark blue, and yellow.

Navy/gold/dark red just looks like a tougher, serious, and more intimidating color scheme. It had that "rugged" feel going on that fit well for a Colorado team. Light blue, navy blue, and yellow looks like a color scheme that someone would wear because they want to look cool and stylish and they want people to like them. I would prefer option 1 for a team I am rooting for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bright colors are not necessarily linked to a strong identity, and dark colors are not necessarily linked to a weak identity.

I don't think I ever said it was that simple...

The San Antonio Spurs have a darker color scheme than the navy/gold/red Nuggets did, and no one ever complains about them not having a visual identity.

The Oklahoma City Thunder have bright colors galore, yet their identity (or lack thereof) is constantly trashed by everyone.

Those two examples alone disprove the "bright colors create more of a visual identity than dark colors" theory.

...so yeah. I don't think I made myself clear. I should have said "muddled" and not "dark."

Is the Spurs' scheme dark? Yes, but it works well because the two primary colours, black and silver, contrast sharply. It's a striking, strong identity. The 90s Nuggets look was muddled. Dark navy, dark red, and washed out gold? Nothing stands out. It's a mix of various shades of drab.

And the Thunder? I've never had a problem with the Thunder's colour scheme, and I would bet the majority of people here don't either. Their problem, in my opinion, has always been the logo. The colours are perfect.

Now, Ice_Cap...

Shalom to you too.

...you mention that there is not much McDyess era Nuggets gear for sale, but here is the thing: the Nuggets were a terrible team during those years. No Nuggets fans want to remember those years. The very fact that we are referring to these uniforms as "McDyess era" just shows you that they were not often worn by a good team and they did not have many stars that wore the jerseys. Check out the Nuggets season-by-season records. It is almost funny how the seasons when they wore the navy/gold/red jerseys, they did so awful, and for the entire rest of their history, they were pretty consistently at least playoff-bound. In other words, the lack of demand for those jerseys has nothing to do with the jerseys themselves.

All of the other teams you mentioned that embrace their 90s throwbacks had good teams, or at least good players, wear their 90s jerseys (Reggie Miller, Barkley, Dominique Wilkins, Mourning, etc.). Their fans cherish the years those jerseys were worn, or at least players who wore the jersey, hence the nostalgia. For the Raptors, people embrace those jerseys as throwbacks because of their 90s wackiness more than anything; plus, they were the first things the Raptors ever wore, and many fans have been around since the teams inception, and basically "grew up" as the team did. Nostalgia.

Trust me as a burgeoning basketball fan from southern Ontario who was eight when the Raptors debut. The Raptors were pretty bad too. They only really got good once they ditched the 90s look, and their recent run of success is even further away from the 90s look. Try to justify it all you want. The Raptors are the perfect example of a throwback look selling like hotcakes despite it being associated with terrible teams.

And as for "it sells because it was the first look the team had/fans grew up with the team"? I teach high school, and that's the crowd that REALLY embraces the Raptors' throwback gear. The crowd young enough that they don't actually remember when the team wore the look. So why do they like it? 90s nostalgia is in, and the Raptors' throwback look, for better or worse, was impactful and meant to appeal to youth. The Raptors' throwback gear hits all the notes to be in demand despite being associated with some abysmal basketball teams.

The Nuggets' 90s look? It just doesn't resonate.

I completely understand what FinsUp is saying about Navy and dark red looking much more rough/outdoorsy/folksy (in otherwords perfect for a team called the Denver Nuggets), from a clothing standpoint, than light blue, dark blue, and yellow.

As I said, being too literal doesn't always work. If you really want to be literal? You'd dress half the NFL in various shades of brown or grey and the Toronto Maple Leafs' uniforms would change colours depending on the season. "It fits the theme" doesn't make a colour scheme good in and of itself.

Navy/gold/dark red just looks like a tougher, serious, and more intimidating color scheme. It had that "rugged" feel going on that fit well for a Colorado team. Light blue, navy blue, and yellow looks like a color scheme that someone would wear because they want to look cool and stylish and they want people to like them. I would prefer option 1 for a team I am rooting for.

Well the Nuggets' adoption of double blue and gold actually predates the double blue bandwagon, and it calls back to a previous look the team had. Looks good? Check. References team history? Check. That's pretty much all a colour scheme has to do for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I respect your opinions and understand where you're coming from. I suppose I just see things much differently than you do on the matter, and that's fine. No one's wrong or right here, just different in views.

Well that's nice of you. As much as I think we should stick this post at the top of every subforum to remind some wayward posters? I don't think it's necessary here. I think both of us get it :)

I think that's the thing with sports branding, because people have different opinions and see things differently, some identities can speak one thing to someone and not the other. You can see how it works with the current colors, I can't. I can see how the 90's colors worked, but you don't. Honestly, I think it provides for good discussion and I learn a lot by engaging in such. So please never take my views as an attack (not saying you have at all), because all I really am trying to get at when I do engage in these kinds of discussions (as I was with this Nuggets conversation) is just the "why" behind what I see in identities/colors/etc, nothing more.

I think a big problem here is that everything, by its very definition, is subjective. Nine out of ten people will say the Yankees have the best look in baseball, and the tenth person will disagree. The problem then arises when the other nine try to tell the tenth person why they're wrong, or when the tenth person tries to tell the other nine why they're wrong (terms such as "old timer," "sheep," or "contraian" usually make an appearance). So it becomes an exercise in trying to treat what is an opinion as fact, which eventually alienates everyone who doesn't share that opinion.

There's no way around that, really. It's human nature. The best any one of us can do is try to critique opinions themselves and not the person making them. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which, because it's all text based. It's hard to read intended tone. So I apologize if I came off as attacking you personally. I was simply critiquing your view of the uniforms in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say it's time for the Nuggets to co-brand with the Avs, but the Avs are just as committed to chipping away at their identity as the dank Nugz are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the Clippers scrap the blue and/or black unis?

LA-Clippers-New-Logo-and-Uniforms-Leaked

CjNjFuV.jpg

According to the leaked Adidas catalog...

Only the black ones made the cut as an alternate so far. But wouldn't be surprised if the blue comes around next year as 2nd alternate. Raptors has two alternates so you never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously most have shared their opinion on the major rebrand efforts this off-season, so we have a general idea of how well received they've been, but I'd like to get a more exact measure of the forum members' feelings on the uniforms and logos now that they've all been released. For anyone that has a moment, here are the links to vote:

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/104552-rating-the-rebrands-nba-2015-raptors/

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/104551-rating-the-rebrands-nba-2015-hawks/

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/104549-rating-the-rebrands-nba-2015-bucks/

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/104556-rating-the-rebrands-nba-2015-clippers/

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/104558-rating-the-rebrands-nba-2015-sixers/

(I would've put them in a single thread but there is a maximum of three questions per poll thread.)

I'll share the results back here in a week or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a pic of the rookie photoshoot with Sam Dekker and Frank Kaminsky and it could've just my phones lighting but it certainly looked like Kaminsky was wearing a black "Hornets" jersey, no sleeves and wasn't "Buzz City". Can anyone shed light on it? It was on the NBA instagram if that helps. I took a screenshot but not sure how to upload that into a post. Looked good imo if it was indeed black and not my phone/lighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.